Incoming Apple retail chief Angela Ahrendts to be named Dame of the British Empire



  • Reply 121 of 133
    If we're all done hijacking the comments section on this article and in case anyone is still interested in the original subject, there is an excellent article about Angela by Jeff Chu of FastCompany here:

  • Reply 122 of 133
    It was/is a serious question.

    I have 74-year-old eyes and stubby fat fingers. I find it difficult to use any smart phone.

    My daughter has an iPad Mini and an iPhone 5C -- she takes them both with her most of the time.

    I have an iPhone 5S, but only use it if I must. I always have my iPad 4 with me. I definitely would consider an iPhone the size of an iPad Mini -- only have to carry one device.

    Not everyone has the same needs or desires -- but mine are as important to me, as yours are to you.

    One problem with people who love iOS and want to stick with that but also want a larger display is the data plans on the iPad. On an iPhone you can likely get unlimited calls, unlimited texts and a big chunk of data for less money than just a a few GB's of data only on an iPad. If the iPad mini had not only cellular data but was also  full fledged phone as well complete with the same plans available to the iPhone then I think many people might consider it. That is a bit too big fro me since I still want to be able to carry it in my pants pocket. But people still need to use their iPhone as a phone not to mention calling 911 in an emergency so until that happens I do not see the iPad mini as a reasonable stand alone option as long as voice and texts are not possible. (yes, I know VoiP and 3rd party text programs are available but that is another layer of costs and complexity and still does not allow for 911 calls)

    Exactly! If the iPad Mini were as capable as an iPhone and had the same carrier plans -- I'd jump on it.

    The "pocketability" is not major [big] issue for me.
  • Reply 123 of 133
    I wasn't commenting on whether 4 inches is big enough.

    It's not the size that counts it's how you use it? ;)

    Or, as we commoners would say: "It's not the meat, it's the motion".
  • Reply 124 of 133
    Pre-announcing it in the Press will likely result in the honour being pulled... These things are supposed to remain confidential until officially announced.
  • Reply 125 of 133
    [QUOTE]Angela Ahrendts will become Apple's SVP of Retail and Online Stores in 2014[/QUOTE]

    I hope she might have the stage presence similar to Steve Jobs and could head up the Keynotes and such in the future. Tim Cook doesn't have any stage presence at all, and Steve Ballmer was a total clown on the stage, but Steve Jobs had the right mix of low key and ernest salesmanship that he honed to perfection over 30 years. If Angela can't cut it on stage, I'd like to see Apple hire a spokesperson to do the front work. Even John Hodgman (Mr. PC) could pull it off.
  • Reply 126 of 133
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post


    Its obvious now the worldwide unit sales for top-end smartphones is about 250,000,000-275,000,000 units a year.

    Apple could have easily caputured 75% of that market if they brought out a big phone on time.


    What boggles my mind is Apple had NO CLUE the market was saturated until now.  Why do I say so?  If they knew the market was saturated they would have released a mid-level phone ($350).  But they didn't.  Either they knew the market was saturated and they didn't give a shet (Arrogant) or they where blindsided by saturation (Clueless).


    Yeah, they increased sales by 12.9% because the top-end smartphone market is totally saturated.  Mkay. 


    And using your numbers if samsung sold 100M S3 and Note 2s and then sold 100M S4 and Note 3s then they didn't grow their share of the top-end smartphones at all.


    Samsung's protestations that the top-end market is saturating and therefore SGS4 sales were lower than expected is belied by the 12.9% increase in iPhone sales.


    Apple continues to increase their overall mobile phone share which is a better indication of whether or not the market has saturated for Apple.  Apple grew sales at a faster pace than the overall market (IDC).  For the year Apple went from 8.6% of the total market in 2012 to 9.2% of the total market in 2013 (Strategy Analytics).





    Strategy Analytics:



    Given they are outpacing total market growth and the #3 handset maker behind Samsung and Nokia while only playing in high end market is pretty good for a clueless or arrogant CEO eh?  


    I guess you could argue that Apple simply took high-end share from Samsung, LG, et al at the now saturated top end of the market.  That's not exactly resounding support for the contention that Apple crippled itself by not releasing larger smartphones either.

  • Reply 127 of 133

    "She's set to be named a Dame of the British Empire...."


    Somehow I couldn't help imagining Humphrey Bogart's voice saying that as I read it. Something about the way he pronounced "dames" I guess! :D 

  • Reply 128 of 133
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post



    Profits down 10% the last year.


    Tim Cook  has been given the best brand in the entire universe and he can't grow earnings?  I'm sorry but the guy is making over a hundred million the last few years. Dude needs to bring results this year or he should be fired or demoted to COO


    I've been avoiding your incessant rant here, but now I'm getting annoyed by it. So I'm going to engage it instead. 


    I'm not at all clear by what you mean when you say "profits down 10%" in the last year. Where are you getting this? What are you referring to exactly? 


    Margins? Annual net earnings total? 


    You're the first and only person I've seen that is using those words here (or anywhere else I've read). "Profits down 10% the past year". 


    It seems to me that it's also an odd time to be ranting, just after one of their best quarters EVER was just announced? Sales, revenue, profits, even margins on the rise (though those are still down from historic -- and IMO unhealthy -- highs in the 40-percentile range)...


    Regardless. What are you basing that statement "Profits down 10% the past year" on? Something credible and tangible please. Let's start there...

  • Reply 129 of 133

    Wow! Sog35's off the deep end. I heard that even Constable Odo send him a PM asking him to tone down his 'fire Timid Cook' rants!

  • Reply 130 of 133
    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post


    Wow! Sog35's off the deep end. I heard that even Constable Odo send him a PM asking him to tone down his 'fire Timid Cook' rants!


    Losing a few thousand in a day can make even the best people a bit edgy.


    ... but now we've got a Dame looking after Apple retail... so all should be good now.

  • Reply 131 of 133

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post



    I'm talking about EPS.


    Last 4 quarters including 12.31.13 Qtr:

    14.50 - 12.31.13

    8.26 - 09.30.13

    7.47 -06.30.13

    10.09 - 03.31.13


    Total = 40.32


    Previous 4 Qtrs

    13.81 - 12.31.12

    8.67 - 09.30.12

    9.32 - 06.30.12

    12.30 - 03.31.12


    Total = 44.10


    Calender year 2012 EPS = 44.10

    Calender year 2013 EPS = 40.32

    Profit decline = 8.57%


    And if you take the buyback into consideration (Apple has bought back about 5%) then its down about 10%

    I think you're backwards on the effect of the buyback. And you also have to count in the dividends paid out of revenue. The net profit is "final", that is after all expenses including share repurchasing and dividends.


    If you analyze Apple's annual financial reports for 2012 and 2013, you'll see that there are quite a number of factors affecting the (frankly minimal) downturn in net margins and profits. 


    Just a few examples among them:

    - substantially increased COGS (this is something no CEO has complete control of, especially with an electronics company so dependent on 3rd party supply). This is a large part of the overall gross profit decline.

    - increased share buyback

    - increased dividend payouts (from $2.05/qtr per share to over $3/qtr per share)

    - significantly increased depreciation recorded last year


    It's very important to note that they saw this "profit reduction" during a time of substantial sales/revenue growth (yes, less than previous years, but still double-digit growth). There was not a precipitous fall in margins year on year, no "negatively accountable" events at the executive level. Simply market forces, costs vs sales, and the result. 


    The reduction in overall operating profit also in great part directly a result of what shareholders wanted!! Share buyback and dividends, among other things. They want more of the "profit" redistributed to shareholders.


    What is the natural result of doing that going to be? The company will have less cash on hand.


    What you're talking about isn't the direct result of one CEO hand. It's a huge number of small things that in many cases aren't manageable enough to be predictable. They are managed, but given plenty of room for variance.


    In my view, after analyzing the annual reports is that Apple did quite well overall, and taking broader market conditions into account, they did even better, exceeding the market and competition by wide margins in most cases.


    I think your complaints are frankly misguided, and driven by the passion of a financial loss. You're looking for someone to "blame", when perhaps there is little or none actually deserved.


    I studied Apple's guidance, compared it to the quarterly report and previous year. Nothing in there justifies the sell off we've seen. I believe there are large holdings selling for profit, driving the stock down, and then will repurchase at the lower price. That downward drive is being supported by those same people hitting the airwaves with FUD alerts and convincing reasons to flee the stock NOW. 


    Personally, I think you sold too soon. If I were you, I'd be buying now. And all the way down. It will be back sooner than you think... 


    Just another opinion!

  • Reply 132 of 133
    Actually the share buyback has the effect of INCREASING EPS. Fewer shares means more earnings per share. So had Appe not purchased shares the EPS discrepancy between 2012 and 2013 would have been worse.

    And, IMO, a large part of the stock drop was due to the incredibly weak guidance. They estimated revenues for the next 3 months that would be flat or possibly lower than the same quarter last year. And last year they did not have China Mobile. So essentially they are saying that the gains from CM in the next year might just enable them to match last year's revenue. Or not. Not a sign of growth at all, but a sign of possible contraction. Unless they are low-balling the estimate, which they promised theh were no longer doing.
Sign In or Register to comment.